Talk:Lil Hal
Rename Page Recommend renaming this page to "Auto-Responder", if it actually manages to remain undeleted. It should! ashdenej 16:41, November 22, 2011 (UTC) Should probably redirect to the auto-responder's section on D??? Strider's page 19:40, November 22, 2011 (UTC) Great page, this is. JordanTH 04:54, November 27, 2011 (UTC) :And now with massive improvements. The Light6 07:44, November 27, 2011 (UTC) Laputan Machine 14:42, January 8, 2012 (UTC)JC Crocker Rename Page Redux little hal? 18:55, July 9, 2012 (UTC) :Considering how confusing that conversation was, I would suggest holding off on moving the article for a bit. --'Neumannz, [[User talk:Neumannz|''The Dark Falcon]]' (Other Talk) 19:11, July 9, 2012 (UTC) ::Likewise. I'm inclined to say AR was trolling and using the name mostly for the excuse to make a billion references to ''2001: ASO. We can move it if the name persists later ::I was meaning to point this out but Dirk and AR use "perfect grammar and syntax" however AR refers to himself as "Lil Hal" not "Lil' Hal", a minor thing but just pointing it out. The Light6 11:34, July 10, 2012 (UTC) ::Surprised that there's no comment here about this conversation being a near direct reference to this scene in Red Dwarf. I'm sure someone will take it from here. Amiculi 15:59, July 10, 2012 (UTC) :It is interesting that in this conversation the AR makes references to not one, but TWO works that have a main character named "Dave". --'Neumannz, [[User talk:Neumannz|''The Dark Falcon]]' (Other Talk) 01:08, July 13, 2012 (UTC) Bringing this back because it seems that Lil' Hal was apparently a name he kept. Also, I'm just gonna say it now: I do not think that Lil' Hal Jr. warrants a separate page. Idk how we'd deal with giving them seperate chatlinks though. Maybe ? 02:58, December 23, 2012 (UTC) Separate page for Junior Should we make a separate page for Lil Hal Junior? AnimeApprentice (talk) 07:05, December 23, 2012 (UTC) :Dunno, but we definitely need a separate icon for it in the pesterlog lists. 14:57, December 23, 2012 (UTC) :I think we need more proof that lil Hal junior is an actual program and not just a joke from AR before giving it an actual page or icon. UvaroviteUriel (talk) 19:28, December 23, 2012 (UTC) :I doubt he will be important enough to warrant his own page, it's fine to mention him here. As for the icon, for now we don't need one, and I doubt we ever will. But let's wait and see, maybe I'm wrong 00:31, December 24, 2012 (UTC) Wrong Trivia Is not the last factoid about Vriska possibly trying to pursuede dave to prototype AR alone completely wrong and otherwise false on multiple levels? first off she is shown as traveling around with the fridge of bodies and brought Equius with her. If her objective was for AR to be prototyped alone without Equius why bring him at all? secondly the image of a humanform of AR with a red color scheme being a sprite is wrong as a sprite would be completely red, not red and black as it is. Lastly as we saw in Caliborns claymation puppet show in this timeline Arquiusprite is still in existence and tied with the imagery it would suggest he came to exist at the same time and in the same manner as happened originally. 18:21, April 23, 2015 (UTC)Albireo :Not necessarily. If the pre-retcon sprites all stayed together (as they are ), then they may all have been on LOWAS when John zapped it into the new timeline, since Jaspersprite was shown to be there. -- 03:00, April 24, 2015 (UTC) ::Yes, exactly what Neumannz said. While I agree with OP that it's premature to assume what Vriska was actually doing there, I don't think Arquiusprite gets created in this timeline, in particular since the kids were all so surprised to see him. If I had to guess, though, I'd say based on the evidence that she wants to prototype Equiusprite alone. ' ' 05:12, April 24, 2015 (UTC) :::And even if it does hold any truth, it's entirely theoretical and just. doesn't belong here imo JakeMorph (talk) 06:52, April 24, 2015 (UTC) ::::Yeah, exactly, that's why I'm not putting ''my interpretation in the article space instead, and just removing interpretation entirely - because we shouldn't be guessing at what the scene meant, we should report on it when it's made clear and leave it as vague as it is for now. 08:56, April 24, 2015 (UTC)